The Transcription and Representation of Spoken Political Discourse in the UK House of Commons Cribb, M. and Rochford, S. Published version deposited in Coventry University Repository Original citation: Cribb, M. and Rochford, S. (2018) The Transcription and Representation of Spoken Political Discourse in the UK House of Commons. International Journal of English Linguistics (8) 2. DOI: 10.5539/ijel.v8n2p1 http://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v8n2p1 Canadian Center of Science and Education CC BY Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. International Journal of English Linguistics; Vol. 8, No. 2; 2018 ISSN 1923-869X E-ISSN 1923-8703 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education The Transcription and Representation of Spoken Political Discourse in the UK House of Commons V. Michael Cribb1 & Shivani Rochford2 1 School of Humanities, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Coventry University, United Kingdom 2 Centre for Academic Writing, Coventry University, United Kingdom Correspondence: Michael Cribb, School of Humanities, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Coventry University, United Kingdom, Tel: 44-024-7765-8011. E-mail: [email protected] Received: October 17, 2017 Accepted: November 10, 2017 Online Published: December 23, 2017 doi:10.5539/ijel.v8n2p1 URL: http://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v8n2p1 Abstract This paper considers the representation of spoken political discourse through the transcription practices of the House of Commons. It considers how the Hansard method of transcription represents the oral debates during the weekly parliamentary sessions of Prime Minister’s questions in three areas: lexical and grammatical fidelity, performance characteristics and interruptions from the audience. The paper also considers how accurately and faithfully speakers in the House quote from Hansard during these sessions as they pursue their arguments. The findings suggest that while Hansard does what it purports to do, modern transcription methods and digital representations necessitate additional tools to augment this system. We argue the case for a more representational, multi-tool approach to the transcription of discourse. Keywords: political discourse, transcription, Hansard, representation, quotation, prime minister’s questions 1. Introduction Speech has always been a notoriously difficult medium to capture permanently. Written language by nature is there on the page for all to see and read; speech by comparison is transitory and lacks permanence. As soon as an utterance leaves the mouth, the message fades rapidly and listeners do not have the means of being able to rewind to listen again. Modern recording techniques sometimes enable a portion to be reviewed but it remains the case that the vast bulk of speech that reaches our ears fades very rapidly. We retain the “gist” of what is said but discard the verbatim record very soon after hearing it. It is important then that we employ robust procedures for transcribing and capturing speech in written form if we are to ensure a full representation of discourse is obtained. The UK House of Commons is a chamber in which debates and discussions take place largely in an oral manner on a daily basis between elected Members of Parliament (MPs) of various parties. The spoken discourse generated via these debates is recorded daily in written form in the official transcripts of the House known as “Hansard”. This is a “verbatim” report of what has been said in parliament but which removes from the transcription “repetitions and obvious mistakes” which are not recorded (Hansard Online, 2016). The purpose of our paper is to review this method of transcription to assess how faithfully it represents what was actually said and the discourse that took place. This is not meant in any way to be judgemental of Hansard, which has served the public well for many decades, as a record of parliamentary proceedings. Rather we look at ways in which this method of recording can be augmented given modern digital representations and highlight the nature of spoken discourse in a political setting. Two main questions are posed: whether Hansard under-represents the spoken discourse of the House of Commons and whether the use of Hansard to quote previous MPs leads to a fair representation of the original statement. The study looks at the discourse of debates during the weekly sessions of Prime Minister’s questions which has become an important event in the British political calendar. Since commentators, journalists and broadcasters often rely on Hansard as a primary source for what has been said during these sessions, it is important that we understand how this written record has been constructed and its limitations. 2. Background Writing developed circa 5000 years ago (Gross, 2012) and since then the medium has been used to transcribe 1 ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 8, No. 2; 2018 speech in various guises. With the invention of audio recording techniques, transcription has proliferated leading to the creation of a plethora of transcription records and databases for a wide range of speech events including telephone dialogues, dinner table conversations and political interviews to name just a few. The standard transcription method in the Applied Linguistics discipline today is Conversation Analysis developed by Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974) in which a full and faithful turn-by-turn transcription of a speech event is generated through a systematic and repetitive analysis of a recording of the original spoken discourse. This method attempts to capture everything that was verbalised including speech hesitation phenomena such as “ums” and “ahs” together with paralinguistic and non-verbal features where significant. This denaturalised transcription contrasts with more naturalised conventions, often employed outside the applied linguistic tradition, in which “the process of transcription is made less visible through literacization, the privileging of written over oral discourse features” (Bucholtz, 2000, p. 1461). Many researchers employ a transcription practice somewhere in between these two extremes however. The transcription and subsequent analysis of spoken discourse are important procedures not only for the linguistic researcher but also for the professional working in the field. There have been many cases, for example, where poor transcription in criminal proceedings, or poor understanding of transcriptions methods, has led to the misrepresentation of statements by lawyers and juries (Coulthard, 2005). Transcription can help the professional in two ways. First, it can help them to understand what has been said. The deliberate act of repeatedly listening to a recording of speech, slowing it down and capturing all the elements of the verbal stream, can help the analyst to understand meanings and structures within the discourse. Second, transcription provides the professional with a permanent record in written form of what has been said which then enables them to move back and forth between recording and transcription as they utilise the resource. One crucial point to make here is that the original recording should not be separated from the transcript once made and then discarded (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008, p. 70). The purpose of transcription is not merely to replace one medium (spoken) with another (written). There has been an almost unlimited number of instances whereby transcripts of spoken discourse have been published in books, articles or online, and in so doing the link with the original recording is broken. Once the separation has taken place, there is little chance of restoring the link and the original recording is often lost to the reader forever. It is a sad fact that we live in a world where written transcripts of spoken discourse abound but are divorced permanently from the original recordings so that whoever happens to read the transcript is unable to recover the original. In this paper, we have attempted to provide live links to all samples of discourse presented to address this situation. 2.1 Hansard Hansard is the official record of what is said in the British houses of parliament. The record has a long history but entered regular publication through the printer Thomas Curson Hansard in the 19th century (Ralphs, 2009). It has been produced regularly since for debates and discussions in both Houses of Parliament (Lords and Commons) with the printed version normally appearing the morning after a day’s sitting. The official Hansard site states that Hansard is a “verbatim report of what is said in parliament” (Hansard Online, 2016). The site makes clear that Members’ words are “edited to remove repetitions and obvious mistakes, albeit without taking away from the meaning” and is an indication that Hansard does not pretend to be what it is not—i.e., a full Conversation Analysis transcription of speech. The transcripts are made live by a number of reporters working in shifts and these transcripts are then handed on to editing staff who compile the day’s report to be published the next morning (Mollin, 2007). The transcripts are thus “thrice removed from the original” (Mollin, 2007, p. 189). Slembrouck (1992) suggested that the process of producing the Hansard report in this way acts to embody “institutional assumptions about what is more or less important in parliamentary discourse representation” (1992, p. 117). The “writtenness” of the record acts to filter out the “spokenness” of language and targets “explicitness” and “well-formedness” of expression (1992, pp. 104-106). He suggested that the process of recording parliamentary discourse “entail[s] a reduction of utterances to ideational claims and positions... leaving interpersonal and textual meanings [out]” (1992, p. 109).